Tvl. Avl Engineering vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered an ex-parte order passed by the respondent on 20.02.2024. It was noted that the period for filing an appeal against this order had already expired. To provide relief to the petitioner and address the procedural irregularities, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Crucially, the Court directed that this appeal shall be entertained without reference to the limitation period. However, this concession was made conditional upon the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax amount as a pre-deposit. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner fails to remit the pre-deposit amount and/or file the appeal within the specified thirty days, the benefit granted by this order would stand automatically recalled. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.A.V.L. Engineering, represented by its Proprietor, Vincent Lino, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an ex-parte order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin-I Assessment Circle. The order pertains to the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to re-do the assessment after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appeal period for the impugned order had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed ex-parte, meaning without the petitioner's participation or representation. This, they contended, constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which mandate an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed. They further argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction, implying that the respondent may have acted beyond their statutory powers or failed to follow prescribed procedures. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment with a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claims in the judgment.